Is it true that the Crown is the state's High Contracting Party in International Treaties?
Does the rest of this follow?
i) Parliament, if it has a role, is that of ratification ex post facto either yea or nay, without the right of amendment in respect of treaties.
ii)The same is true of termination as it is of accession to international treaties
iii) Up till 1972 no international treaty created domestic law in and of itself.
iv) The European Communities Act was an unprecedented International Treaty rightly only ratified after the event by Parliament.
v) The treaty and the subsequent ratification through the ECA was a uniquely enormous and fundamental constitutional amendment. For the first time since Danelaw it made both Parliament and the judicial process subservient to other law -- that subservience flowed from the treaty.It is written in the document.
vi) After the treaty it was the treaty and nothing but the treaty that allowed for law of direct application along with domestic legislation which had to be enacted subject to sanction in order to accommodate foreign law that was promulgated outside the jurisdictions of the United Kingdom.
vii) Thus all EU law and the 'rights' therefrom are a creature of an international treaty.
If the above is correct then does the High Court misdirect itself when it dismisses this argument in regard to extinction of domestic 'rights' and are the chatterati wrong that pre-vetting of an international treaty obligation is the proper role of the Houses of Parliament?